Trinary computing will have a comeback because it's more

Decimal computing will have a comeback because it's more efficient to implement.

Instead of 0 and 1
you have: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Wrong Morse code will make a come back

>>58671562
that's binary dude

>>58671684
No, it's actually (unbalanced) ternary.

>>58672901
there came to be two lengths of silence too
so really it was quaternary

>>58671542
nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy
most efficient would be base e
as far as normal integer counting is concerned, you'd want to go with base 3

File: D.png (22KB, 238x236px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 238x236px

http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/ternary/

maybe when you realise it's much better to wire in binary than ternary you'll understand that testing your value at that scale is all but impossible and you'll have more luck with a binary system

>>58673046
>wire in binary
wot

>>58671345
binary comes from hardware, it's not just something that was decided on for no reason

>>58673064
>implying there is no trinary hardware

>>58673064
That's totally bogus.
All our passive components could totally do BalTer no problem, via negative, null, and positive voltage/current.

>>58672984
If that's true, then why did god make DNA base 4?
Checkmate atheists.

>>58673113

You joke, but that's totally a real thing that you just described.

There was a startup last year that was bought by Microsoft that is encoding data in DNA.

The compression rate is unbelievable.

>>58673884
way too slow to have any practical use though

>>58673884
neither radix nor compression efficiency has anything to do with the particulars of storage implementation

>>58673926
just like every other infant technology throughout history
plus, what you just said is in fact wrong
what's more, the dna molecule has this other inherent nifty feature of exact copy time being constant regardless of size

>>58671345
No, because a light can be either on or off but not both or inverted.

>>58674542
We can use wavelengths to represent states

>>58671345
But how do you signal each?
0 - no current
1 - current.

Does it.work on specific voltages off current?

>>58671345

It's called a database, dummy..

Those sets have no overlap:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE value = 1
SELECT * FROM table WHERE value <> 1
SELECT * FROM table WHERE value IS NULL

>>58673113
What about base 6? I hear it's mathematically perfect.

File: 1203622889390.jpg (53KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x500px

>>58674556
With scientists stopping light for up to 60secs recently I'm looking forward to it.
>how'd they do it?
Not sure, but it had to be a super cool method.

>>58674663
Photon based PC when?

Start programming trinary computers today:
http://trinary.ru/projects/setunws/

>>58673113
Because otherwise it wouldn't work?
Opposite to an A is always a T and opposite to a G a C, if you where to remove the C for example and just put an A opposite to G only one strand of the dna would be readable and would have usefull information so dna duplication would have to completely different, if you would only have 3 bases and put one of the same kind opposite to it, it would tangle up horribly and if you only have one strand it's asking to get your data lost.

Checkmate ethiopean baptists

>>58674542
Lmao just use two led in paralel but opposite orientation, if the current in going one way the one led will shine vice versa

>>58673113
bc two people of 2s. A base one and a flagellant for the work and for a less terse definition of the variety. The variety this way will build unscrupulously and the work will be accounted for by the eficiency of the product. It tests for thîngs on the other half and then moves forward. This way you can figure out who started it. Then from there move the work over.

3 deals with actual production. The work is where efficiency becomes a manner of the process and thus intelligence is noted. If something is found to be intelligent it can bear efficiencies and from there will allow for heuristics as efficiencies. But only through the union bc without the value system the apparent "efficiency" will really be more like just a manner of communication.

As stated there can be manners of "execution" and discourse interaction between the independent systems all themselves. You just need to provide a platform. That happens in scale.

If you take a low enough level course at computer engineering university, you'll hear about what's called a tristate buffer. There's basically high, low and "high impedance."

We were told under no circumstances to use it, it even as an error signal.

OP, we'll talk again when something meaningful can be said about quantum computers.

>>58674613
That's not a bad analogy.

>>58671345
no point since with quantum computers we can edit the fabric of spacetime to help us download shitty japanese cartoons faster than the speed of light

>>58671345
No it won't. Binary perfectly represents both logic and arithmetic, binary is the way transistors work, binary is more resistant to errors.

>>58672901
>>58672951
There are at least three lengths of silence: between dots and dashes within a letter, between letters, and between words.

But really Morse code is binary. Each cycle, either the needle is pressed or it's not. Pressed for one cycle is a dot, pressed for three cycles is a dash, unpressed for one is the gap between dots and dashes, unpressed for three is the gap between letters, unpressed for five is the gap between words. It could be a string of bits with 1 for pressed and 0 for unpressed.

>>58673063
Signal on, signal off. That's what he meant.

But trinary could work by having a signal either be off, halfway on or fully on, on a second thought, that sounds like Analog signals

>>58674542
>b
>>58674556
You can just use phase or polarization as additional info.

>>58675902
>We were told under no circumstances to use it
Were you also explained why?

>when something meaningful can be said about quantum computers.
Quantum computing is a whole different type of computing (non-deterministic). It has nothing to do with any of this.

>>58676400
>Were you also explained why?
Always turns out buggy when trying to actually use it for something useful, because it's high impedance state its actual value could literally be anything. Basically you account and check for it, but you don't actually use it.

>Quantum computing is a whole different type of computing (non-deterministic). It has nothing to do with any of this.
There's a multidirectional component to how you can entangle particles. Basically, "up" and "down" abstractions in this case caused by only being able to check particles accurately in two directions.

Eventually, more direction will become available allowing for "bits" to have extra states. Even then it's really just a quantization of the reality of how a particle can be entangled in the first place, the only hard rule is that opposite sides have opposite charge.

Tl;dr qubits have infinite states as opposed to high, low and Z.

How does balanced ternary relate to regular ternary when it comes to arithmetic and representation of positive and negative numbers? In a three's complement sense are they basically the same?

File: 1447605382851.png (22KB, 295x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 295x300px

>>58671345
> you have: + 0 -

It's more convenient to call them 0, 1, and 2. Then your "sum" operation becomes simply addition modulo 3.

> more efficient to implement

If it's true that tri-state logic is more efficient (which I seriously doubt) then shouldn't we be looking at 4-state logic as being possibly even more efficient? Why did you stop at 3?

>>58676551
See >>58672984

>>58674205
>what's more, the dna molecule has this other inherent nifty feature of exact copy time being constant regardless of size
Doesn't the copying of data for cloning DNA take at least O(2n) time due to the lookup, and also the fact that it's using what's essentially a molecular step motor to move along both the dna and RNA linearly? Also there's the major issue of the data being fragile: organisms can fix corrupted data due to redundancy but still cancer and evolution exist.